Message ID | Y30YOvHpqvte9otX@black.fi.intel.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] intel-pinctrl for 6.2-2 | expand |
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 7:42 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > This is an immutable tag with PWM feature enablement for Intel pin control IPs. > It's targeting v6.2 and have been reviewed by all stakeholders. > > The idea is that PWM and pin control subsystem soak up it independently. I wanted to give Thierry the option to say if he's pulling this in, but it needs rotation in linux-next so I've pulled it into the pin control tree now. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 09:25:02PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 7:42 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > This is an immutable tag with PWM feature enablement for Intel pin control IPs. > > It's targeting v6.2 and have been reviewed by all stakeholders. > > > > The idea is that PWM and pin control subsystem soak up it independently. > > I wanted to give Thierry the option to say if he's pulling this in, > but it needs rotation in linux-next so I've pulled it into the pin > control tree now. Thank you! Note, that Thierry and Uwe gave their respective tags to the patches.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 01:00:01PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 09:25:02PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 7:42 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > This is an immutable tag with PWM feature enablement for Intel pin control IPs. > > > It's targeting v6.2 and have been reviewed by all stakeholders. > > > > > > The idea is that PWM and pin control subsystem soak up it independently. > > > > I wanted to give Thierry the option to say if he's pulling this in, > > but it needs rotation in linux-next so I've pulled it into the pin > > control tree now. > > My recollection is that Andy wanted to take this through the Intel pin > control tree, so there's no need for me to pick this up as well unless > perhaps for conflict resolution (which I'm not seeing right now). The idea was to have an immutable tag that all parties, who are involved, can pull. It means if you don't need it, it's fine, since the main route is Intel pin control as you said. Thank you!